On 03/15/2016 05:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In short, I think we should reject this implementation and instead try
> to implement the type operators we want in the core grammar's Typename
> production, from which plpgsql will pick it up automatically.  That is
> going to require some other syntax than this.  As I said, I'm not
> particularly pushing the function-like syntax I wrote upthread; but
> I want to see something that is capable of supporting all those features
> and can be extended later if we think of other type operators we want.


Anyone want to argue against changing the status of this to Rejected or
at least Returned with feedback?


Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to